"Yes, I like most scientists believe the big bang theory to be the most complete picture we currently have of the universe but to state that we would not be able to admit that it is wrong is simply an ignorant statement. There is not a single legitimate scientist that honestly believes that the Big Bang Theory is a complete and 100% apt description of our universe.

We "big bangers" remain ready to re-write the encyclopedia but will not pick up the pen until a better theory comes along that makes more prediction with better accuracy than the Big Bang Theory. Because if we rewrite the book based on our beliefs and anecdotal evidence then we are no longer scientists but philosophers. And its not like we haven't admitted “Oh Balls! We were wrong all the time!” like with the advent of General Relativity which overturned one of my favorite scientists of all time: Sir Issac Newton. Not to mention the advent of Quantum Mechanics which was very difficult for one of greatest scientific minds of all time: Einstein but even he was able to admit he was wrong and swallow his pride.

No true scientist can blindly fight for a theory no matter how much evidence supports it, but only a fool can fight for a theory with no evidence. [Responding to Orkneylad below]

Cullen

"The Hubble Constant is the foundation-stone of Big Bang Theory and has been falsified by observation numerous times: http://www.glebedigital.co.uk/blog/?p=1194 However, to come up with this ‘flat Universe’ theory, they use this same Hubble Constant. Isn’t this simple cognitive dissonance, albeit on a mass scale? Cosmology and astrophysics are both dominated by ‘big bangers’, they run the State-funded institutions and control the peer-review system. They are not about to turn around now and say: “Oh Balls! We were wrong all the time!” This is not human nature, but the true scientist should always be ready to re-write the encyclopedia."